[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 12 KB, 258x375, Shakespeare_as_Business-Man1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13248787 No.13248787 [Reply] [Original]

If Shakespeare was reborn in this era, would he be writing screenplays?

>> No.13248791

He would be a porn addict that wouldn't amount to anything.

>> No.13248805

No, absolutely not, films are extremely visual, whereas poetry is the meat and potatoes of his plays. He would write novels or poetry or plays.

>> No.13248813

Obviously, yes.

>> No.13248816

He'd be branded an anti-semite and black-balled from the artistic community.

>> No.13248820

>>13248787
He’s be an unoriginal failure

>> No.13248821

>>13248787
He would probably write fanfics and masturbate to traps

>> No.13248847

>>13248787
He'd take a look around and see just how depraved the "arts" are (as well as their promoters) and realize good art has no place in modern society and then either kill himself or get a job at McDonald's

>> No.13248863

>>13248847
He wrote homosexual love sonnets. And published them for imcome.

>> No.13248868

>>13248863
>homosex bad
Obviously better than what's put out now desu

>> No.13248876

>>13248863
If this is meant as a diss to Shakespeare you should definitely read Before Homosexuality by Khaled el Rouayheb.

>> No.13248903

>>13248876
I have read The History of Sexuality, I imagine it's a similar thesis.

>> No.13248920

>>13248903
Yes but since you are into the whole Muslim shtick it is a book of intellectual history in that context. Foucault was clueless about the 'east' and Rouayheb is generally very knowledgeable and generous in his treatment of the Muslim world, despite being of Christian origin.

>> No.13248944

>>13248920
But his concern is purely cultural, mine is religious. I go by the Sunnah which covers everything from wet dreams to nosebleeds to sweat to penetration without ejaculation to kissing to fondling.

>> No.13248952

Yes, David Chase is modern Shakespeare

>> No.13248975

>>13248944
No he has actually worked on tafsir traditions. But yeah sure do your thing.

>> No.13248977

>>13248952
>David Chase

didn´t this guy created The Sopranos?

>> No.13249169

I mean, can a good screenplay be considered literature?

>> No.13249186

>>13249169
Did Harold Pinter win the nobel prize?

>> No.13249398

If he was born today he would never become Shakespeare, that’s for sure, but is probable that he wouldn’t even get involved with the arts. All the people who say that he would be a great screenwriter or movie director fail to see that Shakespeare’s main talent was not of storytelling, but that of language, of poetry, of words. Movies and TV are much more dependent on the image than on the language, and the dialogue is mostly directed toward the realistic and the natural, and not the poetical and rhetoric. If you try to be poetic on this industry they will soon correct you with the red-pen of the cutting judge.

If Shakespeare was born today he would not even had the same education that he was submitted to in a Grammar School (that though mostly Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, Oratory, decoration of speeches from old poetry books and lots of figures of speech), so one wonders if he was even going to discover what his passion and talent really was. For all we know he might end up studying Law.

If Shakespeare was born today with the same genetics that enabled him to become the greatest poet of all time (and that by far, much superior to even Homer or Dante) he would lack, firstly, the education that would cut the rough stones of his talent and sculpt it into a diamond. Then, if he were led to pursue his dream of working with poetry, he would not find a proper theater to let his real talents flow. Books of poetry don’t sell, so he would hardly feel interested to pursue such goal. He might end up writing novels, but not with the same poetic exuberance he displayed in his plays. What’s more, since plots were not his strong suit, he would toil a lot to came up with ideas for novels, and the writing of it would take more time than the writing of plays. The result would be a smaller and less poetic corpus. Maybe some 10 novels, and none of them as poetic as the greatest of his plays.

If he ended up in Hollywood he would hardly be noticed, because his gift – as I already mentioned - was not one of creating interesting and original plots. He might try his hand at adapting books and novels to screenplays, but he would never be allowed to digress and let torrents of words to burst out of the brains and tongues of his characters (like I said before, he wouldn’t even have the training for that – Grammar Schools of the Elizabethan era were better at training one to become a poet than all the Ivy League Universities of today). The first director or reviser that eyed a “Shakespearean” script would cut most of it – “get your feet on the soil and take your head out of the clouds, kiddo” - and son Shakespeare was going to be satisfied (or forced to be satisfied) with the smaller levels of writing of a Billy Wilder and his partners, or a Paddy Chayefsky. Could he win Oscars? Yes. Would he be a genius? No.

cont.

>> No.13249403

>>13249398

The only way for Shakespeare to be Shakespeare on this time and age is for him to be born again in a world where his previews incarnation – Shakespeare 1 – had already existed. This new Shakespeare – Shakespeare 2 – would need to become obsessed with Shakespeare 1, and work his best to beat him in his own game, and that in spite of the fact that the poetic drama is totally out of Fashion today.

So let us imagine Shakespeare 2 as a boy who likes to read and write. He ends up discovering the works of Shakespeare 1 and falls in love with them. Here, he realizes, is one writer who is not afraid of excess and bombast and color and metaphors and similes. Here is one writer who is not infected by the mediocrity of restriction and simplicity of a Hemingway or the Elements of Style manual. Here is one writer who gives his all in his works, who is always trying to impress the playgoer and reader, always trying to show how smart and brilliant he is, always firing all his bullets. At the same time – let us imagine - Shakespeare 2 gets in contact with the current criticism of the day (Harold Bloom, etc) and learns that Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer of all time.

So Shakespeare 2, moved by his knowledge of his own talent to create metaphors and verbal fireworks, and spurred forward by an enormous ego and unfathomable confidence, decides – against all odds, against the fashion of the day, against the demands of the market, against the spirit of his own age and time, against the pain of not being easily recognized as other, much more mediocre writers are recognized – to become himself the number 1 writer of all time.

He studies all of Shakespeare’s works again and again and again, and also all the best criticism on him: on his use of verse, on his way of handling metaphors and figures of speech, on his uses of rhetoric, on his use of prose, on his construction of songs, on his uses of sources for the plays and the remodeling of the sources, on iambic pentameter, etc.

Only if a miracle like the one above was to happen would he have something like Shakespeare again. Now you people count the chances of something like that ever happen.

>> No.13249413

>>13248787
I should hope not.

>> No.13249592

>>13248975
Tafsir pursuant to fiqh?

>> No.13249983

>>13249403
It's almost a Borges-like argument.

Books of poetry don't sell... but no less than in the 16th century.

And usually, you know very early that you have the "vocation" of poetry in you. No great poet suddenly discovers he's interested in poetry at age 21 because he had to read Virgil at the University. You know that when you're a child already; just hearing a few weak rhymes in a popular song is enough to give you the calling, for life.

Also, it's not like poetic prose is not appreciated today. A tougher challenge for Shakespeare would have been to be reborn in early 18th century France, where all exuberance was banned in the writing style--it had to be proper, polite and polished.

>> No.13249991

>>13248787
Obviously. TV is far superior to theatre.

>> No.13249997

What is the main point of Shakespeare's attraction or what is it supposed to be?

>> No.13250036

>>13249592
All tafsir is 'pursuant' to fiqh, that is what distinguishes it from ta'wil (think of Imam Maturidi's ta'wil al Qur'an). You call your interpretation of the book ta'wil when you are not too confident and admit it is just an opinion, you call it tafsir when you are convinced it is the right interpretation. However, as I said, Rouayheb is not a Muslim but an intellectual historian.

>> No.13250093

>>13248791
>>13248821
maybe I'm shakespeare then desu

>> No.13250102

>>13250036
"Allahu A'alam" is not in the munafiq's vocabulary, and since you didn't drop a reputable scholar's name, it is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to ask. I'm Maliki and kissing or fondling your wife is considered sufficient to constitute intercourse, this is based on Sunnah and Malik's affirmation.

>> No.13250113

>>13250102
You dont know what munafiq means if you are calling an openly non Muslim man munafiq. You also have not read the book - the point is simple, your dogmatic ahistorical understanding of Islam is an a modern fiction.

>> No.13250128

Why the fuck are there Muslim evangelists derailing every thread lately? How the fuck is Shakespeare related to Islam? Are you fucks from a discord server or something? Are you trying to Islamify /lit/?

>> No.13250133

>>13250128
/lit/ is already Muslim akhi

>> No.13250144

>>13250113
I didn't mean the author, I was expressing suspicion of the Islamic scholars he cites

>> No.13250149

>>13250133
There are like 3 of you on here.

>> No.13250156

>>13248787
He'd have a Twitter account and follow Kantbot and Tao Lin.

>> No.13250862

>>13250128
>How the fuck is Shakespeare related to Islam?
He literally was a Muslim called Sheikh Zubayr desu

>> No.13251165
File: 3 KB, 102x124, no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13251165

>>13249398
>(and that by far, much superior to even Homer or Dante)

>> No.13251175

>>13249398
>Grammar Schools of the Elizabethan era were better at training one to become a poet than all the Ivy League Universities of today

what went wrong? i want books discussing this topic

>> No.13251188

>>13251175
Decline of liberal education and the introduction of standardized testing

>> No.13251209

>>13251165
Non-Anglo here. I read these three poets in translation, and while Homer and Dante are underwhelming, Shakespeare is so good he overtakes all the best authors in my native language.

>> No.13251221

>>13251209
>I read these three poets in translation,

you read the translation, not the original, dummy

Homer>Dante>Shakespeare

>> No.13251234

>>13251209
>Homer and Dante are underwhelming,

>> No.13251241

>>13249983
>And usually, you know very early that you have the "vocation" of poetry in you. No great poet suddenly discovers he's interested in poetry at age 21 because he had to read Virgil at the University. You know that when you're a child already; just hearing a few weak rhymes in a popular song is enough to give you the calling, for life.
And how do you know this is an absolute truth, retardo? did the Muses tell you?

>> No.13251244

>>13251221
My point is: there's something superior to Shakespeare because what makes him great is universal and can be translated in every language, while Homer and Dante are boring in the same circumstances.

>> No.13251254

>>13251244
>while Homer and Dante are boring in the same circumstances.

that´s your opinion, not the objective truth

>> No.13251255

>>13251221
Strong reading comprehension

>> No.13251274

>>13251241
>>13251254
>arguing that someone's opinion about literature is not "the absolute truth" or "the objective truth"

lol

>> No.13251301

>>13251221
It's a bit of a strange comparison. From what I understand you can't really credit Homer with the actual content or most of the language of the Iliad and Odyssey. greekfags feel free to call me a retard. Dante I have not read in Italian, but it seems like his most impressive element was his imagination and understanding of the psyche. Shakespeare is unparalleled in talent with metaphor imo, and everything he wrote just sounds incredibly good.

>> No.13251324

>>13248787
>Dad was a downwardly-mobile craftsman
He'd prolly take a semester at a community college, drop out and shitpost on /lit/ (and /tv/ maybe)

>> No.13251325

he would probably be working as a barista and/or spending most of his creative energy shitposting. nobody has the attention span to write anymore.

>> No.13251366

>>13251325
>barista

a homo then